posted Apr-19-2007 01:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:

I don't WANT it to be true! It would throw my whole world into a freefall. I don't like freefalls. No.

Now, it is highly possible to get lower readings on certain days, but their is a limit to the highest you can get (e.g. it won't get to 300 bpm). So far so good with using the highest I've seen. I've added a few beats from 197 to 199. Doesn't make a difference really. I am curious about using % LT for training instead, as that might be more of a true number.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

---

This just popped up somewhere a month or two ago. Turns out that there is evidence that MHR can change with training (slightly) and age.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 10:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Whoa....Jesse told em the other day that this discussion is on it's 4th go around! He wasn't' kidding!
I was in on the original discussion back then and moved to NM and have been out of touch.
Still doing the low HR training for the most part...I do add tempo runs in once or twice a week and I've got to say I always go back to the MAF.
I am 55, have been using this method since the winter of 03/04 like Jesse after an injury. Started with 12 mpm on a flat treadmill at my upper MAF of 135 and now probably run in the range of 9 mpm for most of my runs. I do let it go to where i am more comfortable, which is around 140.

Good seeing this is still around! Nice following, Jesse!

---

Hey Steve! Glad to see you stopping back by! I think many people
would be very interested in the nuances of your approach (if I've
got it right) - following Mittleman's advice (about 10 beats over
180 - age) and throwing in a tempo run each week ... with some
damn good marathon times that I'll probably never touch!

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Whoa....Jesse told em the other day that this discussion is on it's 4th go around! He wasn't' kidding!
I was in on the original discussion back then and moved to NM and have been out of touch.
Still doing the low HR training for the most part...I do add tempo runs in once or twice a week and I've got to say I always go back to the MAF.
I am 55, have been using this method since the winter of 03/04 like Jesse after an injury. Started with 12 mpm on a flat treadmill at my upper MAF of 135 and now probably run in the range of 9 mpm for most of my runs. I do let it go to where i am more comfortable, which is around 140.

Good seeing this is still around! Nice following, Jesse!

---

Weird, Steve. I haven't posted here in ages, and suddenly you post. Booo-weee-oooo.

But seriously, good to hear from you.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:20 PM            

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Apr-19-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:47 PM            

As a woman, they are sure that I have a heart and that it is smaller. All this fancy stuff comes later I guess. The only study I came across lately on women was about carb loading. Meh.....

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 12:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
The article that popped up in a thread (actually the link was to an abstract) stated that with Vo2max training, your MHR can reduce by 3-6% temporary and it returns after your conditioning wears off. I don't remember which journal he got it from or I would Google for it. Well, I guess there were two links, each separate studies and done on men. I am still on my own for this one.

As a woman, they are sure that I have a heart and that it is smaller. All this fancy stuff comes later I guess. The only study I came across lately on women was about carb loading. Meh.....

---

The way I see it is that if working in a particular zone(s) in relationship to the highest MHR I've ever seen gets me to my race goals, there is no reason to bother retesting to see if it is temporarily lower, then readjusting zones if it is a bit lower. I don't think as I get in great shape using whatever zones (e.g. 65-71%, my MAF) that suddenly I'm working "too hard" using the same zone. Plus I just had a MHR tattoo (199) put on my butt. No way am I going to be changing it all the time. Maybe once every ten years.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 09:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
P.S. My Sweetie bought me a Forerunner 305 (207.00 on Amazon.com) for my birthday (last Sunday, you all missed it, thank you very much). I am in stats heaven. The thing does everything; even told me when to stop for a pee break. It measured my urine output and its relation to water intake. Amazing.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited Apr-19-2007).]

---

LOL. It is a nice device though, no doubt.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 01:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Hey Steve! Glad to see you stopping back by! I think many people
would be very interested in the nuances of your approach (if I've
got it right) - following Mittleman's advice (about 10 beats over
180 - age) and throwing in a tempo run each week ... with some
damn good marathon times that I'll probably never touch!

---

Ummm, Jesse....I think you are on your way to running what I used to run back in the 80's. Jesse's talking about sub 2:50's...he'll be there!

My low HR training started in the late 70's. Yeah we didn't have HR monitors then and no one had ever heard of Maffetone or Mittleman. I found this book that was published by Runner's World..."The Van Aaken Method" by Dr Ernst Van Aaken. You can still find copies of the book and I do suggest reading it if you are interested in becoming a competitive runner. Dr. Van Aaken's word was to keep your HR between 130 & 150 BPM for 95% of your runs, to run every day and as much as you could run everyday. Without going into it much deeper, I will give you a discussion on Letsrun about Van Aaken. if this interests you, get the book.
http://tinyurl.com/2m37fr

Back on this training I was able to run a 4:55 mile and a 2:48 marathon on basically no organized speedwork. I ran to and from work, about 5 miles each way at about an 8-9mpm pace (slow at the time, fast for me now). I ran as slow as I could, trying to keep with Van Aaken's method. He also suggests running fast for a short period once a day, so I ended every run with a 1/4 mile pickup. Other than an occasional race, that was the extent of my fast running.

Fast forward to 2003...while running a 100 mile trail race in Utah, I tripped and fell, herniating a disc which caused pain in my leg from sciatica. While doing research on that I stumbled upon Maffetone's approach and followed it for 6 months. That summer I ran a 100 in Wyoming, starting by walking, as Maffetone suggests, for the first 2 miles. I was dead last in the field of about 100. As I began to run/walk my way through the field, I never felt wasted and was only drinking liquid fuel (running on fat). I ended that race in 13th place at 52 year's old in 29:39.

Today at 55, I feel like I need a little more than just the slow running day after day. I found the book "Slow Burn' by Stu Mittleman, who was a student of Maffetone's and read with interest his use of speedwork, very slow speedwork, so started adding 3 mile tempo runs twice a week. my daily runs got a little quicker and my first real test will be next weekend at the Zane Gray 50 mile in AZ.

According to Maffetone formula, I should be running at 130bpm or less. I have found that I run better at 140 bpm, which is where 95% of my running is. I am running maybe around 70 mpw.

Every now and then I go off the wagon and start doing faster workout, but always return to the low HR method, which is best for longevity of your running and also if you enjoy starting slow and passing runners all the way to the finish line ;-)

Steve

PS: Mr Waverly, I am moving back to NH as soon as my house sells.

------------------
Steve
My User Profile

My Photo Page

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 01:49 PM            

I just ordered a Garmin Forerunner 305. The price/rebate through Amazon was too good and I knew that I was running out of reasons for putting this off any longer.

I ran today's 5 mile run very slow (but w/o a HRM) and early in the run I felt smooth and like I could run forever ... later in the run I felt tired and just wanted to stop.

I wasn't too bothered by the first couple of runners who passed me ... although after that I became a little aggravated when someone who looked "slower" than me, passed me (Does that make sense?!). To be honest, they didn't look too pleased either after I shouted at them, "I'm running slow on purpose! I'm really faster than you!"

Anyway ... I'm sure I'll have a lot of questions once the new toy arrives.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
Alright ... I've decided to take a sip of the Kool-Aid.

I just ordered a Garmin Forerunner 305. The price/rebate through Amazon was too good and I knew that I was running out of reasons for putting this off any longer.

I ran today's 5 mile run very slow (but w/o a HRM) and early in the run I felt smooth and like I could run forever ... later in the run I felt tired and just wanted to stop.

I wasn't too bothered by the first couple of runners who passed me ... although after that I became a little aggravated when someone who looked "slower" than me, passed me (Does that make sense?!). To be honest, they didn't look too pleased either after I shouted at them, "I'm running slow on purpose! I'm really faster than you!"

Anyway ... I'm sure I'll have a lot of questions once the new toy arrives.

---

I feel it. The ego implications suck. I hate getting passed by Joe Trotter w/smug grin. I know it shouldn't matter. But it does. Maybe a shirt with your best times posted on the back.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 05:01 PM               

Read the introductions, one by Allen and one by Mike Pigg, in Maffetone's book (it's either in Training for Endurance or the Eating version). They talk about the same thing -- how they were slow and embarrassed when out there with everyone passing them. I heard Mark Allen lecture and he was running two minutes a mile slower when he started on Maffetone's program.

And Maffetone does recommend doing anaerobic work, even track intervals, as part of the yearly program. So we don't run slow all the time. Plus, we get faster at the same heart rate during the aerobic period.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 06:02 PM               

the problem is; to have a low enough heart rate I have to run at around 16 mins a mile

can I build a distance doing the low heart rate runs?

I want to do 12 mpw increasing by 4 every week for the next 3 months when I plan to join the running club when I start uni?

and would I see a lot of performance increases doing nothing but slow miles?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 06:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by john aiton:
hey, i'm a newish runner and want to build a good mile base
using the low heart rate method.

the problem is; to have a low enough heart rate I have to run at around 16 mins a mile

can I build a distance doing the low heart rate runs?

I want to do 12 mpw increasing by 4 every week for the next 3 months when I plan to join the running club when I start uni?

and would I see a lot of performance increases doing nothing but slow miles?

---

You gotta do what you gotta do. If you have to run 16 minute miles to keep your heart rate down near your MAF, then you NEED to be run/walking until your heart rate comes down. You barely have any aerobic development at all. No biggie, that's very temporary.

MAF training will give you a chance to develop in your body's time--not the time you are about to force upon it. If you stay below MAF, and build your mileage, then that time will come down--when your body is ready. Walk if you have to. No shame in that. If you are starting at 12 mpw, I suggest that you build by 5-10% every week, not 4 miles a week. When you get to 40 mpw, then build by 4. Give your body time. It'll pay off. Cut your miles back every 4th week for recovery.

Good luck.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 06:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[B] You gotta do what you gotta do. If you have to run 16 minute miles to keep your heart rate down near your MAF, then you NEED to be run/walking until your heart rate comes down. You barely have any aerobic development at all. No biggie, that's very temporary.

MAF training will give you a chance to develop in your body's time--not the time you are about to force upon it. If you stay below MAF, and build your mileage, then that time will come down--when your body is ready. Walk if you have to. No shame in that. If you are starting at 12 mpw, I suggest that you build by 5-10% every week, not 4 miles a week. When you get to 40 mpw, then build by 4. Give your body time. It'll pay off. Cut your miles back every 4th week for recovery.

Good luck.

--Jimmy

---

thanks Jimmy.

I'll take it as slow as I have too and increase at
10% of my mpw

I'll keep track of my progress and times so people can see
how much a beginner improves using low heart rate training

cheers

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Boldface originally posted by ultrasteve:
..."The Van Aaken Method" by Dr Ernst Van Aaken. You can still find copies of the book ...

---

A great little book. I read it in the mid to late 70s and really enjoyed some of his published interviews as well. IIRC
"Run slowly, run daily, drink (alcohol) moderatly, don't eat like a pig."
"Before you run a marathon you should run an ultramarathon. Before you run an ultramarathon you should walk one."

Back on this training I was able to run a 4:55 mile and a 2:48 marathon on basically no organized speedwork.

Yeah, I'm a lot slower so I did a 5:45 mile and 2:57 marathon at age 40.

He also suggests running fast for a short period once a day, so I ended every run with a 1/4 mile pickup. Other than an occasional race, that was the extent of my fast running.

Yep, exactly the same.

According to Maffetone formula, I should be running at 130bpm or less. I have found that I run better at 140 bpm, which is where 95% of my running is.

Have you been tested to find your AeT, AT, etc? The Maffetone formula is just an approximation, and it wouldn't be so unusual for someone with your profile, mpw, etc to have an Aerobic Threshold (AeT) 20 or more bpm above what the 180 formula gives. (Heck, I'm just a slowpoke non athlete, but my AeT is over 20 bpm above what the 180 formula gives for you... and I'm at least 13 years older.)

and also if you enjoy starting slow and passing runners all the way to the finish line ;-)

Especially blasting by 'em the last 6 miles of a marathon.

Gino

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 10:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
[b]According to Maffetone formula, I should be running at 130bpm or less. I have found that I run better at 140 bpm, which is where 95% of my running is.

Have you been tested to find your AeT, AT, etc? The Maffetone formula is just an approximation, and it wouldn't be so unusual for someone with your profile, mpw, etc to have an Aerobic Threshold (AeT) 20 or more bpm above what the 180 formula gives. (Heck, I'm just a slowpoke non athlete, but my AeT is over 20 bpm above what the 180 formula gives for you... and I'm at least 13 years older.)
[/B]

---

I'm not sure how you're defining aerobic threshold. The Maffetone formula is not related to that, but a separate number as I understand it. But the formula is very accurate when compared with RQ vs HR on the treadmill tests as we discussed much earlier here.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 12:05 PM            

I ran a 69:49 10 miler 3 weeks ago, which mcmillan tantalizingly calls equivalent to a 3:15:30 marathon (my BQ is 3:15:59). I'm doing a marathon in two weeks and I did a BQ pace experiment at a 10-mile race this morning. The plan was to run even 7:28 min/mi and see how I felt and what my heart rate was. I learned that 1) I'm a pretty bad test subject (didn't run even splits); and 2) it's unlikely I can run 7:28 for a marathon. The data is below. "asc/des" is ascent and descent in feet during the split; "hr" is average heart rate and the last column are my heart rate splits for my PR marathon. I did a 25-minute warmup @ 133 bpm.

code:

---

mile..asc/des..pace...hr..mar_hr
...1..+10/-92..7:31..163..161
...2..+00/-10..7:34..171..170
...3..+30/-10..7:35..173..170
...4..+49/-33..7:45..175..169
...5..+20/-00..7:16..178..169
...6..+00/-66..7:13..177..170
...7..+00/-00..7:27..178..169
...8..+00/-10..7:15..179..169
...9..+30/-20..7:51..178..170
..10..+10/-23..6:42..185..170

---

pace: 7:26 min/mi, avg hr: 177. avg marathon hr at 10 miles: 169.

I was pretty encourage during the first mile (which is very downhill), but when I couldn't keep near 170 and make 7:30, I pretty much the result of the experiment. After the 7:45 split I tried to ease back down to the 7:28 pace I wanted to average and overshot some. Then I was right back on overall pace at 8 miles and tried to ease back to do two 7:30s, but ran a 7:51 9th mile?! At this point I was annoyed and tried to make sure I made up the lost 20 seconds, but overshot again and (in my annoyed state) ran the 6:42 last mile.

One thing that I found interesting is that I appear to have bounced back from the lower heart rates I saw at cherry blossom. I averaged 180bpm there. If I went for a PR today, I'm pretty sure I could have averaged 184bpm like I did last august at annapolis. I felt completely fine the whole way, but I'm quite sure I couldn't have run back the other way and then 2/3 of the way back If I had paced myself a little better, I'd say there's an outside chance I could have run 20 at that pace.

Realistically, I don't think I have any shot at a BQ (damn you calculators for telling me I do!). The course I ran today is fast with a net downhill of 80 feet and temps were ~55deg with no wind, sunny and no shade. Conditions can't be any better on May 6th and from the course elevation map it looks like the marathon has some hills. The question I have now is what to shoot for. It's been a while since I blew up at a marathon (closing 47-minute 5K last march!). I've almost forgotten the pain. Maybe I should (foolishly?) try to hang with the 3:20 pacer for the first half. By the way, I wish 14 day forecasts were real. Accuweather calls for low 48 and high 62 on May 6th.

Greg

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 12:29 PM               

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 01:00 PM               

Having said that, I've been looking for elevation maps because I don't believe this is net downhill or that this is a "PR" course. Sure, the first two miles are a blast down hill, but who needs that? Didn't like it. Not there. After that, I swear it was uphill 60% of the time or more.

I ran this race on a lark and to reward myself for completing my 4-week recovery. My plan was to just take it relatively easy, run MP miles and save myself for tonight's hockey game. Of course, I got carried away somewhere along the way -- I always do -- and huffed it in the last mile. I'll also say that I ran an hour yesterday and 11 miles three days ago, so there was no "taper." For comparison, my first 18 miles at National -- which was cold and rainy, were @147 HR for @ 7:35 pace (max = 169). Here are my splits.

6:40 (144), 6:55 (146), 7:07 (146), 7:25 (147), 7:16 (147), 7:04 (148), 7:16 (149), 7:18 (148), 7:10 (151), 6:40 (157). This comes out to like 7:09 pace and puts me right on the McMillan predictor scale. The truth is, I could have run maybe 60-100 seconds faster today.

This just reminds me that HR is a fickle animal. At these same levels, I was running 20 seconds/mi slower in the marathon. How? I don't know. I don't care. The first couple miles establishes the benchmark on any given day. Honestly, the 146-47 that I ran today felt a little harder than it did 4 weeks ago. I think 143-44 would be equivalent effort. And I don't know how this stacks up to Frederick, but it was not the "easy" course that everyone makes it out to be. I'll admit, while I'm at it, that I tend to be a good test taker. The nerves that some people combat don't seem to affect me. I think that carries over to important races. When I fail, it's because I wasn't good enough. All I can say is forget the blow-up. It never happened. Don't obsess, stick with the smart pre-race plan, and see where it takes you. It's all about the journey.

Good luck.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 01:39 PM            

Thanks for the pep talk. I actually had no regrets after my blow up race. I ended up with a 33 minute PR instead of what might have been a 40-45 minute PR. No big deal. All in the journey as you say. I'm wiser now, so I think I can give myself a chance and avoid bonking if it's obvious it's not going to work out. I might as well try. Not much difference between 3:16:01 or 3:42 (which would be a PR) at this point.

Thanks,
Greg

By the way, I was thinking the same thing about the course today. Despite the elevation drop, I don't think it's as fast as cherry blossom.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 05:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I'm not sure how you're defining aerobic threshold. The Maffetone formula is not related to that, but a separate number as I understand it...

---

Oh, ok. The way I've understood Aerobic Threshold (AeT) to be defined is this:

"The intensity level beyond which the body cannot provide all the oxygen needed. Above this level anaerobic energy sources start to operate to support the aerobic energy sources."

or, equivalently

"The point at which anaerobic energy pathways start to operate."

In other words, activity below the AeT is 100% aerobic.

After my VO2 test, my recommended training ranges were given to me based on the measured Aet and AT:

Long runs, and all base building runs, no higher than AeT.

!st-speedwork-phase speed workout:
warmup at least 20 minutes aerobically (<= AeT)
ramp up to AT - 3bpm and hold for 2 minutes.
jog easy ramping down to AeT -10 bpm
repeat this ramp up / ramp down interval "N" times
warmdown with easy aerobic running.

Well, that's the idea. Anyway, that's the definition of Aerobic Threshold that I was given, and it matches what I've seen in an online search.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 07:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowgino:
Oh, ok. The way I've understood Aerobic Threshold (AeT) to be defined is this:

"The intensity level beyond which the body cannot provide all the oxygen needed. Above this level anaerobic energy sources start to operate to support the aerobic energy sources."
or, equivalently
"The point at which anaerobic energy pathways start to operate."
In other words, activity below the AeT is 100% aerobic.

---

I'm just looking for some consensus here and not busting your chops.

But, what is the definition of aerobic? Anaerobic?

I ask because we're using these terms so often.

I define both terms in relation to the fuels rather than from an oxygen standpoint since it's more practical.

Aerobic=higher fat, lower sugar burning
Anaerobic=lower fat, higher sugar burning

This is general, but we can determine the mix of fuels for an individual with good accuracy.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 09:05 PM               

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 12:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I've generally thought of aerobic threshold as MAF, roughly
anyway, perhaps around an RQ that gives 75% fat/25% carb
or thereabouts.

---

Ok, something like this certainly makes sense to me in terms of how the equipment used in the test tells you where you are. Is there general agreement on what fat/carb percentages we have at the AeT? I found another source which says that the Aerobic Threshold is the point where the active muscles begin to use more glycogen than fatty acids to provide energy. Does that mean 50%,50% , and if so would that be an RQ of about 0.85?

As you can probably tell, my knowledge on this stuff is pretty meager... just a few things I've read and the AeT number printed out on the sheet from my VO2 test.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 03:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
Sorry this is long and off-topic for the thread, but I know where to find my fellow HRM geeks.

I ran a 69:49 10 miler 3 weeks ago, which mcmillan tantalizingly calls equivalent to a 3:15:30 marathon (my BQ is 3:15:59). I'm doing a marathon in two weeks and I did a BQ pace experiment at a 10-mile race this morning. The plan was to run even 7:28 min/mi and see how I felt and what my heart rate was. I learned that 1) I'm a pretty bad test subject (didn't run even splits); and 2) it's unlikely I can run 7:28 for a marathon. The data is below. "asc/des" is ascent and descent in feet during the split; "hr" is average heart rate and the last column are my heart rate splits for my PR marathon. I did a 25-minute warmup @ 133 bpm.

code:

---

mile..asc/des..pace...hr..mar_hr
...1..+10/-92..7:31..163..161
...2..+00/-10..7:34..171..170
...3..+30/-10..7:35..173..170
...4..+49/-33..7:45..175..169
...5..+20/-00..7:16..178..169
...6..+00/-66..7:13..177..170
...7..+00/-00..7:27..178..169
...8..+00/-10..7:15..179..169
...9..+30/-20..7:51..178..170
..10..+10/-23..6:42..185..170

---

pace: 7:26 min/mi, avg hr: 177. avg marathon hr at 10 miles: 169.

I was pretty encourage during the first mile (which is very downhill), but when I couldn't keep near 170 and make 7:30, I pretty much the result of the experiment. After the 7:45 split I tried to ease back down to the 7:28 pace I wanted to average and overshot some. Then I was right back on overall pace at 8 miles and tried to ease back to do two 7:30s, but ran a 7:51 9th mile?! At this point I was annoyed and tried to make sure I made up the lost 20 seconds, but overshot again and (in my annoyed state) ran the 6:42 last mile.

One thing that I found interesting is that I appear to have bounced back from the lower heart rates I saw at cherry blossom. I averaged 180bpm there. If I went for a PR today, I'm pretty sure I could have averaged 184bpm like I did last august at annapolis. I felt completely fine the whole way, but I'm quite sure I couldn't have run back the other way and then 2/3 of the way back If I had paced myself a little better, I'd say there's an outside chance I could have run 20 at that pace.

Realistically, I don't think I have any shot at a BQ (damn you calculators for telling me I do!). The course I ran today is fast with a net downhill of 80 feet and temps were ~55deg with no wind, sunny and no shade. Conditions can't be any better on May 6th and from the course elevation map it looks like the marathon has some hills. The question I have now is what to shoot for. It's been a while since I blew up at a marathon (closing 47-minute 5K last march!). I've almost forgotten the pain. Maybe I should (foolishly?) try to hang with the 3:20 pacer for the first half. By the way, I wish 14 day forecasts were real. Accuweather calls for low 48 and high 62 on May 6th.

Greg

---

I'm curious...why do you BELIEVE you can't BQ?

--Jimmy

@@@@
jog log

IP: Logged